Re: United Front WITH Fascism?

Alan,

Fascinating and insightful commentary!  Could you please elaborate a bit more 
on exactly what you mean by your last two sentences?  I quote "Fascists are 
the worst form of pollution and waste. We can start cleaning up the planet by 
getting rid of the fascists, not offering them advice."  Do you foresee any 
sort of final solution to this human "waste disposal" problem?

Thanks,

Milo Jones


In a message dated 25/05/2001 04:48:25 GMT Daylight Time, 
spectors@netnitco.net writes:


Barry Brooks writes:
 
To avoid problems we need to build an economy that tries to minimize
consumption.  Communism, capitalism, or even fascists could strive to
survive. It's only a question of informing them that they have a way to
become internally consistent.  See my web site for more about the use of
durability to conserve.  (Boldface added by me for emphasis--A.S.)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----
My comment:
 
Has WSN sunk so low as to advise "fascists" how to survive by becoming 
"internally consistent?" This list  (WSN) started out as a way to explore the 
ways that various "national economies" are connected internationally, and 
this exploration was done utilizing DATA, historical, economic, sociological, 
political. And as sometimes stated, a nearly always implied assumption, was 
solidarity with the oppressed and exploited, especially the workers and 
peasants of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  
 
Then came the occasional activist pronouncements on WSN  (which were often 
relevant) but which gradually began to deteriorate into all kinds of 
individuals (generally but not always with little data)  offering all kinds 
of utopian schemes spun out of their "middle class" heads to "rearrange" the 
world, generally with little grasp of history, economics and especially the 
fundamentally ruthless nature of the capitalist State(s). 
 
And now it has come to this: environmentally concerned individuals (not bad 
in itself, of course) completely depoliticizing their environmentalism to the 
point where "fascists" are being given advice on how to survive! Perhaps 
Pinochet or the Death Squads of El Salvador could be "informed" on how to 
follow the Nazi's occasional practice of lining prisoners up in a row so as 
to be able to kill several of them all at once with only one bullet. Think of 
all the bullets that could be saved! And how it could help limit the amount 
of lead that might otherwise pollute the soil! 
 
This is where the logic of abandoning a class analysis goes -- to calling for 
unity with the worst, most murderous monsters the human mind can imagine, 
supposedly for the purpose of fighting a common enemy--waste and 
pollution--while those monsters not only continue to commit genocide, but, 
incidentally are the ones responsible for the waste and pollution as well, 
which is a POLITICAL-ECONOMIC problem, and not mainly a problem of 
technology, or engineering, or "educating those in power."  Fascists are the 
worst form of pollution and waste. We can start cleaning up the planet by 
getting rid of the fascists, not offering them advice.
 
Alan Spector
 
===================================================================== 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Brooks" <durable@earthlink.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Alternatives to Corporate globalization



> 
> We can't wait for the 2nd coming of anyone.
> 
> We can't expect any existing movement or ideology to answer the new problems
> we face.
> 
> We can't solve anything by being against or for canned ideas or fighting any
> system.
> 
> We can propose ways to fix existing systems, of whatever stripe.  The
> problem is not in any system.  It is in the total lack of understanding of
> how things work that we fall into debating useless trivia.
> 
> My I repeat what I believe is a positive suggestion.  I would be interested
> in any comments WSN subscribers might have.
> 
> ************
> 
> If an item lasted twice as long we would only need to produce half as many
> to supply demand. As we move backwards to consume even more energy we only
> speed the coming of exhaustion of non-renewable energy. As I understand it,
> the need to make jobs requires a consumer society.  The increase in
> consumption is all that has kept machines from causing unemployment.  But,
> the growth goal of our economy is at odds with conservation, which requires
> using less.
> 
> Needless to say, business types don't like the idea of increasing durability
> to conserve.  Engineers like it a lot, but they don't enter into policy
> debates.  Economists know about to possibility of using increased durability
> to conserve, but they never mention it.
> 
> To avoid problems we need to build an economy that tries to minimize
> consumption.  Communism, capitalism, or even fascists could strive to
> survive. It's only a question of informing them that they have a way to
> become internally consistent.  See my web site for more about the use of
> durability to conserve.
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~durable
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Barry Brooks
>